Dataset Information

High Risk versus Proportional Benefit: Modelling Equitable Strategies in Cardiovascular Prevention.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the performances of an alternative strategy to decide initiating BP-lowering drugs called Proportional Benefit (PB). It selects candidates addressing the inequity induced by the high-risk approach since it distributes the gains proportionally to the burden of disease by genders and ages.

Study design and setting

Mild hypertensives from a Realistic Virtual Population by genders and 10-year age classes (range 35-64 years) received simulated treatment over 10 years according to the PB strategy or the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines (ESH/ESC). Primary outcomes were the relative life-year gain (life-years gained-to-years of potential life lost ratio) and the number needed to treat to gain a life-year. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of changes introduced by the ESH/ESC guidelines appeared in 2013 on these outcomes.

Results

The 2007 ESH/ESC relative life-year gains by ages were 2%; 10%; 14% in men, and 0%; 2%; 11% in women, this gradient being abolished by the PB (relative gain in all categories = 10%), while preserving the same overall gain in life-years. The redistribution of benefits improved the profile of residual events in younger individuals compared to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines. The PB strategy was more efficient (NNT = 131) than the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines, whatever the level of evidence of the scenario adopted (NNT = 139 and NNT = 179 with the evidence-based scenario and the opinion-based scenario, respectively), although the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines remained the most efficient strategy (NNT = 114).

Conclusion

The Proportional Benefit strategy provides the first response ever proposed against the inequity of resource use when treating highest risk people. It occupies an intermediate position with regards to the efficiency expected from the application of historical and current ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines. Our approach allows adapting recommendations to the risk and resources of a particular country.

SUBMITTER: Marchant I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4631497 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBenefit-targeted statin prescribing may be superior to risk-targeted statin prescribing (the current standard), but the impact and efficiency of this approach are unclear.Methods and resultsWe analyzed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) using an open-source model (the Prevention Impact and Efficiency Model) to compare targeting of statin therapy according to expected benefit (benefit-targeted) versus baseline risk (risk-targeted) in terms of projected population-level impact and efficiency. Impact was defined as relative % reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the US population for the given strategy compared to current statin treatment patterns; and efficiency as the number needed to treat over 10 years (NNT10, average and maximum) to prevent each atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event. Benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statin therapy at a treatment threshold of 2.3% expected 10-year absolute risk reduction could produce a 5.7% impact (95% confidence interval, 4.8-6.7). This is approximately equivalent to the potential impact of risk-targeted therapy at a treatment threshold of 5% 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (5.6% impact [4.7-6.6]). Whereas the estimated maximum NNT10 is much improved for benefit-targeted versus risk-targeted therapy at these equivalent-impact thresholds (43.5 vs 180), the average NNT10 is nearly equivalent (24.2 vs 24.6). Reaching 10% impact (half the Healthy People 2020 impact objective, loosely defined) is theoretically possible with benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statins of persons with expected absolute risk reduction >2.3% if we expand age eligibility and account for treatment of all persons with diabetes mellitus or with low-density lipoprotein >190 mg/dL (impact=12.4%; average NNT10=23.0).ConclusionsBenefit-based targeting of statin therapy provides modest gains in efficiency over risk-based prescribing and could theoretically help attain approximately half of the Healthy People 2020 impact goal with reasonable efficiency.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We previously showed that the 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk threshold to initiate statins for primary prevention depends on the baseline CVD risk, age, sex, and the incidence of statin-related harm outcome and competing risk for non-CVD death. As these factors appear to vary across countries, we aimed in this study to determine country-specific thresholds and provide guidelines a quantitative benefit-harm assessment method for local adaptation. METHODS:For each of the 186 countries included, we replicated the benefit-harm balance analysis using an exponential model to determine the thresholds to initiate statin use for populations aged 40 to 75?years, with no history of CVD. The analyses took data inputs from a priori studies, including statin effect estimates (network meta-analysis), patient preferences (survey), and baseline incidence of harm outcomes and competing risk for non-CVD (global burden of disease study). We estimated the risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins were more likely to outweigh the harms using a stochastic approach to account for statistical uncertainty of the input parameters. RESULTS:The 5th and 95th percentiles of the 10-year risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins outweigh the harms across 186 countries ranged between 14 and 20% in men and 19-24% in women, depending on age (i.e., 90% of the country-specific thresholds were in the ranges stated). The median risk thresholds varied from 14 to 18.5% in men and 19 to 22% in women. The between-country variability of the thresholds was slightly attenuated when further adjusted for age resulting, for example, in a 5th and 95th percentiles of 14-16% for ages 40-44?years and 17-21% for ages 70-74?years in men. Some countries, especially the islands of the Western Pacific Region, had higher thresholds to achieve net benefit of statins at 25-36% 10-year CVD risks. CONCLUSIONS:This extensive benefit-harm analysis modeling shows that a single CVD risk threshold, irrespective of age, sex and country, is not appropriate to initiate statin use globally. Instead, countries need to carefully determine thresholds, considering the national or subnational contexts, to optimize benefits of statins while minimizing related harms and economic burden.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in women by implementing a cardiovascular prevention health promotion program in faith- and community-based sites. The primary outcomes were reducing obesity and increasing physical activity. A longitudinal cohort of high-risk (age > 40, ethnic minority) women (n = 1,052) was enrolled at 32 sites across the USA. The pre- or post-educational intervention consisted of eight biweekly counseling sessions conducted over 4 months each addressing one of six of the major CVD risk factors (smoking, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, obesity, and physical inactivity) as well as signs and symptoms of a heart attack and stroke; plus 4-6 maintenance sessions over three additional months. A multifaceted approach delivered by lay and medically trained personnel involving medical screenings, health behavior counseling, risk behavior modification, and stage of change were determined at baseline and end of counseling or maintenance. Following list-wise deletion, data were analyzed on 423 women who completed all follow-up time-points. Overall, significant improvement was attained in most of 28 secondary outcomes but not in the primary outcomes. Knowledge and awareness of heart disease as the leading killer or women, all of the signs and symptoms of a heart attack, calling 911, and CVD risk factors increased significantly (p < 0.05) by 8.8%, 13.6%, 5.8%, and 10%, respectively. There was a 10% (p < 0.05) increase in participants attaining control for hypertension (blood pressure < 140/90) coupled with a significant reduction in mean blood pressure in the entire cohort. Knowledge of effective CVD risk modification strategies for all CVD risk factors increased significantly (p < 0.05), except for obesity. In addition, there were significant (p < 0.05) increases in forward movement in stage of change for each CVD risk factor (range +10% to +39%). Thus, a heart disease prevention intervention built around a model of community engagement, advocacy, self-efficacy, resource knowledge, and health promotion in faith- and community-based organizations is successful at improving cardiovascular knowledge and awareness outcomes in high-risk women. Limitations of our study include the high dropout rate, significant time demands on site coordinators, limited resources for program implementation, lack of morbidity and mortality endpoints, and failure to attain the primary outcomes of weight loss and physical activity. Future studies should not only assess the effect of community education interventions on lifestyle change and knowledge and awareness of participants but should also address program duration, cost, and resources required to attain improved outcomes.